Gutknecht Survives Ballot Challenge

I don't have anything against Gil Gutknecht, and the attempt to get him scrubbed from the ballot is the kind of silly legal challenge that gives the law a bad name (see post from 8/14 for more on this issue). However, and this is a BIG however, I have a major problem with what the Minnesota Supreme Court did today. After hearing arguments on the question this morning, the Court denied the challenge and allowed Gutknecht to stay on the ballot. So far, so good. However, the Court failed to justify its reasoning, refusing to issue an explanation of the order denying the challenge.

The Courts have a tremendous amount of power. When a State Supreme Court hears an argument in something like a ballot challenge, which is focused at the very mechanism by which those in power justify having that power, it is vital that every decision be explained. I have no doubt that this decision was the correct one; I'm not a conspiracy nut who believes that the powerful courts are protecting incumbents. However, it certainly seemed that the lawsuit that was filed, while petty, was based on legitimate legal reasoning. How long would it have taken to write a 2-3 page simplified analysis explaining why the Court did what it did? The answer . . . not too much, and doing so would have avoided a further deterioration of faith in the Courts held by some. This was a poor decision by the Minnesota Supremes.